In lieu of an abstract, here a short extract from the introduction:
... when using the term “critical” in CES (Critical Entrepreneurship Studies), we have in mind research which deliber- ately goes against the grain of functionalism and its deterministic view of human nature, reality and research, with the aim of opening up space to critique the canon of accepted knowledge and to create the conditions for rearticulating entrepreneurship in light of issues pertaining to freedom, emancipation or societal production. We seek to challenge and destabilise existing knowledge to open up new and different understandings that may change society for the bet- ter; we seek to critique in order to create. In this way, CES can be thought of as a double move- ment which critically engages with the mainstream of entrepreneurship only in order to break it open so that novel possibilities, be they practical or conceptual, can take flight. As we write this text, research that challenges the mainstream of entrepreneurship research clearly outnumbers studies which set out to rearticulate entrepreneurship as a society-creating force whose broader effects have emancipatory purchase, not merely economic utility. To carve out the unique poten- tial of CES, we would like to sketch out, if only tangentially, different strands and research tradi- tions which bear relevance for a critical understanding of entrepreneurship.
Purpose – As a critical and intimate form of inquiry, ethnography remains close to lived realities and equips scholars with a unique methodological angle on social phenomena. This paper aims to explore the potential gains from an increased use of ethnography in social enterprise studies.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors develop the argument through a set of dualistic themes, namely, the socio-economic dichotomy and the discourse/practice divide as predominant critical lenses through which social enterprise is currently examined, and suggest shifts from visible leaders to invisible collectives and from case study-based monologues to dialogic ethnography.
Findings – Ethnography sheds new light on at least four neglected aspects. Studying social enterprises ethnographically complicates simple reductions to socio-economic tensions, by enriching the set of differences through which practitioners make sense of their work-world. Ethnography provides a tool for unravelling how practitioners engage with discourse(s) of power, thus marking the concrete results of intervention (to some degree at least) as unplannable, and yet effective. Ethnographic examples signal the merits of moving beyond leaders towards more collective representations and in-depth accounts of (self-)development. Reflexive ethnographies demonstrate the heuristic value of accepting the self as an inevitable part of research and exemplify insights won through a thoroughly bodily and emotional commitment to sharing the life world of others.
Originality/value – The present volume collects original ethnographic research of social enterprises. The editorial develops the first consistent account of the merits of studying social enterprises ethnographically.
Entrepreneurship is largely considered to be a positive force, driving venture creation and economic growth. Critical Perspectives on Entrepreneurship questions the accepted norms and dominant assumptions of scholarship on the matter, and reveals how they can actually obscure important questions of identity, ideology and inequality.
The book’s distinguished authors and editors explore how entrepreneurship study can privilege certain forms of economic action, whilst labelling other, more collective forms of organization and exchange as problematic. Demystifying the archetypal vision of the white, male entrepreneur, this book gives voice to other entrepreneurial subjectivities and engages with the tensions, paradoxes and ambiguities at the heart of the topic.
This challenging collection seeks to further the momentum for alternate analyses of the field, and to promote the growing voice of critical entrepreneurship studies. It is a useful tool for researchers, advanced students and policy-makers.
In light of the ongoing dominance of functionalist approaches as well as recent signs of change towards more critical and nuanced perspectives, we offer this book as a collection of critical narratives which render visible diverse examples of non-traditional entrepreneurship as well as usually overshadowed aspects of ‘traditional’ entrepreneurship. The chapters in this book interrogate entrepreneurship from a range of differing perspectives. They each reveal how extant research has tended to privilege entrepreneurship as a distinct field of economic action and an exclusive activity for distinct groups of people, while at the same time illustrating examples of other, more collective and value-based forms of entrepreneurial organising and exchange. Accordingly, the book takes issue with and exposes some of the dominant ideologies, intellectual traditions and prevailing assumptions which bind entrepreneurship within the dictum of profit maximisation and wealth creation (Görling and Rehn 2008; Rindova et al. 2009). At the same time, the book assumes a pro-active stance in seeking to position entrepreneurship as an activity, behaviour or process which can be linked to new ethical and political possibilities. Together, the chapters give voice to unheard stories, places and potentialities of entrepreneurship which are usually left out of existing research (Steyaert and Katz 2004). In this book, entrepreneurship is reconceptualised as a social change activity that moves against the grain of orthodoxy in order to realise spaces of freedom and otherness (Dey and Steyaert 2016; Hjorth 2004; Verduyn et al. 2014; Essers and Tedmanson 2014).
Due to increasing market competition, the purchasing and the measurement of the quality of goods and services can be considered as an essential task within a company. While goods purchasing and evaluation is a well-known process, research on acquisition and evaluation of business services still barely exists. Although the importance of service quality aspects seems obvious, existing approaches mainly consider monetary evaluation criteria. The following work provides a systematic approach in order to increase the understanding of business service evaluation, using case study research from five Swiss multinational companies. Additionally, a literature review provides insights into existing evaluation procedures. A contingency approach is used as the theoretical basis to address differences in the applied evaluation approach regarding the service type and the point of a service consumption. Results provide insights into different evaluation scopes; revealing different requirements and varying accuracy depending on the service type and the person responsible for the evaluation. Conclusively, the results and their limitations are discussed in regard to their managerial and theoretical contribution.
This study contributes to language-sensitive International Business research by examining forms of language use other than monolingual conversations in national languages. It focuses on hybrid languages that are derived from heterogeneous language sources. Based on modern linguistic research, the study conceptualises multilingualism as joint mobilisation of linguistic resources. Adopting a discursive approach, it empirically investigates the positive and negative effects of hybrid language use for individuals and teams in two companies in Switzerland. The findings show that users of hybrid language are positioned as being able to exchange information more effectively, feeling more comfortable in interactions as well as having more possibilities to express voice and participate. At the same time, hybrid language use is described as having limiting effects in certain contexts. The study therefore suggests to integrate hybrid languages in definitions of individual and organisational language capital, and to strategically address it on the top management and Human Resources Management level.
Keywords
Multilingual organisations; hybrid language use; multilingualism as joint linguistic resources mobilisation; linguistic research; participation; expressing voice; improved communication; efficiency; information exchange; knowledge transfer; individual and organisational language capital; translingual communicative competence; discursive study; Switzerland
This study contributes to language-sensitive International Business research by examining forms of language use other than monolingual conversations in national languages. It focuses on hybrid languages that are derived from heterogeneous language sources. Based on modern linguistic research, the study conceptualises multilingualism as joint mobilisation of linguistic resources. Adopting a discursive approach, it empirically investigates the positive and negative effects of hybrid language use for individuals and teams in two companies in Switzerland. The findings show that users of hybrid language are positioned as being able to exchange information more effectively, feeling more comfortable in interactions as well as having more possibilities to express voice and participate. At the same time, hybrid language use is described as having limiting effects in certain contexts. The study therefore suggests to integrate hybrid languages in definitions of individual and organisational language capital, and to strategically address it on the top management and Human Resources Management level.
Keywords
Multilingual organisations; hybrid language use; multilingualism as joint linguistic resources mobilisation; linguistic research; participation; expressing voice; improved communication; efficiency; information exchange; knowledge transfer; individual and organisational language capital; translingual communicative competence; discursive study; Switzerland
